Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

[Tmaque]

amgid:

OK, here is a scripture that depicts Apostasy OF the Church:

2 Timothy 3:

1 This now also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
…

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof…
This is a perfect description of the state of the Christian world (not just Catholic) today. They all have a “form” (i.e. outward appearance) of Godliness, but they all “deny the power thereof.” This “power thereof” is above all else manifested in the ability of the Church (and its ministers) to operate, and lead and guide the Church, by direct revelation from haven, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, and by the ministering of angels, by means of true prophets and Apostles. Whenever God has had a true Church on earth, it has always been led by direct revelation from God in this way. But you people deny this power. You not only do not possess this power yourselves, you even deny any need or necessity for it either. The LDS Church is the only Church in the world that does not. Modern day Christendom is apostate precisely because it “has a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof”.

amgid

Interesting that you left out the intervening verses that allows us to put this in context. Let me help you out:

1
But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days.
2
People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious,
3
callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good,
4
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5
as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them.

First of all Timothy is talking about individual people, not religions.
Secondly, the people that make a “pretense of religion but deny it’s power” are self-centered, lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, etc, etc, etc. Are you saying that all Christians other than LDS are these things? The thought of that is ridiculous on it’s face. But, for your exegesis to be correct this MUST be your conclusion. I think one of your problems is the fact that you’re using the KJV which most scholars agree is a poor translation.

The obvious meaning of the passage is that people make a show of religion but deny(by their actions) that it has any significance to their lives.

 

[jgcase]

ComradeAndrei:

I thought it was interesting to see what logical leaps some folks would make just to prove that the “red savages” were too stupid and uncivilized to have aspired to create great civilizations like what the Mound Builders had, or what the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas etc. built farther south. Of course, someone else had to do this and they had to have been Biblical…

…or aliens, according to the followers of Erich “Chariots of the Gods” Von Daniken (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods)).

Wait a minute, isn’t that pretty much what the LDS **does ** teach? (“Heavenly Father” coming from a planet encircling the star Kolob, and all that stuff.) Does anyone know what von Daniken’s religious background was/is?

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by amgid
They all have a “form” (i.e. outward appearance) of Godliness, but they all “deny the power thereof.”

That is a blanket statement. Do you know that each and every (ALL) who claim to be Christian fit neatly into this Godless bowl? Do you *know *the hearts and minds of each and every person who claims to be Christian?
The scripture you quote, 2 Timothy: 3&5, is NOT referring to some “great apostasy of The Church”, but to individuals who would be swayed away from true teaching.
Are you suggesting that each and every Christian person believed in error for 1,820 years?!?
If so, that is ludicrous.

 

[jgcase]

Jehu13:

The Common thing that I have noticed about Mormans, JW’s, muslims and some Protestant believes is the Apostasy Theory that I saw quite clearly to be wrong as a Evangelical.

Yes, I think I’ve observed before that I actually heard the “Great Apostasy” theory first from Independent Baptists…and interestingly, this group also had an aversion to the cross, similar to what I’ve since learned about the Mormons’ distaste for it as merely an instrument of torture and execution, rather than the symbol of Christ’s victory as most Christians regard it.

 

[PaulDupre]

amgid:

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof
This is a perfect description of the state of the Christian world (not just Catholic) today. They all have a “form” (i.e. outward appearance) of Godliness, but they all “deny the power thereof.”

St. Paul never uses the word “all” in this passage. Again you have interjected this word to make the passage fit your agenda.

amgid:

This “power thereof” is above all else manifested in the ability of the Church (and its ministers) to operate, and lead and guide the Church, by direct revelation from haven, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, and by the ministering of angels, by means of true prophets and Apostles. Whenever God has had a true Church on earth, it has always been led by direct revelation from God in this way.

Again you are adding to the plain meaning of the text. What St. Paul specifically describes is the sins of these apostate individuals, not their form of Church government.

You cannot simply add text to the scriptures to make them support your position.

Paul

 

[Demosthenes]

BJ Colbert:

Thanks Paul,
See I am getting so confused with all the conceptions I do not know what is Catholic and what is Mormon.
I thought immaculate conception was when a child was conceived without traditional sex. Sorry, again. My husband is also using LDS terms to describe his beliefs so we are both melding into our own version of Catholic-Mormonism. I keep having to tell him “No you don’t believe that, you believe this” Now, I’m doing it too. What I meant is that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary without her having had sex with God, as some here have stated. So please forgive my confusion.
BJ

BJ,

It is my understanding that the LDS faith does teach that God had traditional sex with Mary.

It is Bruce R. McConkie that states in Mormon Doctrine " These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (pp. 546-47)

Also stated by Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation, “… Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!”

Bruce McConkie also stated in The Promised Messiah “… there is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God–the Only Begotten of the Father.” (pp.468-69)

I could offer more quotes, but these seem to support the point.

D

 

[edmondhall]

When I see intelligent and knowledgable LDS folks making these leaps and stretches with verses like 2Timothy 3 (and with Matthew 16–claiming that *‘the gates of hades will not prevail against the church’ * actually means the gates of hell will not be able to hold back Jesus from preaching the gospel to the dead in hell–)…these desparate attempts just increase my Catholic faith all the more.

 

[Chris-WA]

Katzpur:

In the KJV, this verse is stated as follows:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This verse needs to be interpreted according to the understanding that the Apostles (and other Jewish converts to Christianity of that time period) would have had. When most Christians today see the phrase, “the gates of hell,” they immediately assume that it is referring to Satan and/or the forces of evil. Some even assume that it is a hyperbole and is intended to mean something like, “no evil in the world.” When understood in this way, the sentence would be interpreted as meaning something like, “… and upon this rock I will build my church; and no evil in the world shall prevail against it.”

But to Peter and the Apostles, this would have meant something entirely different. In their culture, “the gates of hell” would mean nothing quite so ominous. To a first-century Jew, this phrase would have simply been a reference to the entrance to the underworld, or the abode of departed spirits. It was where the dead were believed to reside. Consequently, Jesus was telling them that His gospel would even be taken to “hell,” which is exactly what happened. During the three days His body lay in the tomb, He visited “hell” or “the spirit prison,” teaching His gospel and setting free the spirits who would accept it.

Katzpur, I agree that it’s important to see scripture how the original readers/audience would have understood it. Unfortunately, though you claim this is the case for your above interpretation, I don’t think it’s correct. I’m not sure what source you used to get that interpretation, but it has some major problems. When Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, he was not talking about how he was going to take the gospel to the dead in purgatory (spirit prison). He was talking about the Church–the one built on the rock of Peter. What does the rock of Peter have to do with taking the gospel to the dead in Sheol?

I wouldn’t put it that strongly, simply because the Church (i.e. Christianity) certainly did not cease to exist at any point in time. There have been devout Christians on earth ever since Christ’s time. However, we believe that the authority Jesus gave to Peter was not, in fact, passed on to Linus. We believe that, with the deaths of the Apostles, the line of authority ended.

This is where common sense is needed. Do you really think that Jesus Christ would go to the trouble of establishing His church (not Peter’s church, not James’ church, not John’s church, but Christ’s own church) on the rock of Peter only to have its authority disappear after its first earthly leader died? Does it make any sense for Jesus to commission his Apostles to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and give them the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth if the authority wasn’t to be passed on?

Without legitimate divine authority, there is no way the early church could have ever survived the first 300 years of viscious Roman persecution. You think the early LDS had it bad in New York, Illinios, and Missouri? Yep, they did, but imagine much much worse conditions over 300+years. That’s what the early church faced, and yet triumphed over. They outlasted Rome and every evil kingdom and empire the world has seen since. Take some time and think about that, and then ask yourself how it was possible.

Therefore, revelation ceased, and doctrines evolved over time to be quite different, at least in some cases, from those Jesus and His Apostles had taught.

What doctrines have changed? How do you know this?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

PaulDupre:

Hi BJ,
We are very interested in exposing the LDS faith because:

1. Mormons specifically target Catholics for conversion.
2. Mormons consistently spread vicious falsehoods about the Catholic faith and Christianity in general. (That was one of the first things that made me doubt the LDS leaders - I heard some slanderous lies from the GA’s)
3. LDS are deceptive - they misrepresent the Church’s history and doctrines to investigators and other non-members. It isn’t until the investigator is already baptised that he begins to learn what the Church really teaches. That’s one reason convert retention rates are so low.

As a former LDS missionary I can tell you that the “Elders” are instructed that Catholics are easy targets. LDS missionaries are also very active in predominantly Catholic countries, trying to lure gullible people away from the faith of their fathers.

We are just defending the truth and informing the unsuspecting. Hopefully those who read these forums will not fall for the missionaries’ tricks.

God love you,
Paul

Dear Lost&Found
This is the post I was responding to when I asked if defending the truth against Mormons was like defending the truth against protestants in Ireland.
I do not know how you got the idea I was attacking the Irish, by that question. But, I hope you have it in context now. It sounded like Paul Dupre was going to war defending the unsuspecting about the wicked Mormon tricks.
Sorry, that brought Ireland to mind and I said it must be similar to that war. No offense intended against my Irish ancestors, or yours.
BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Demosthenes:

BJ,

It is my understanding that the LDS faith does teach that God had traditional sex with Mary.

It is Bruce R. McConkie that states in Mormon Doctrine " These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (pp. 546-47)

Also stated by Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation, “… Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!”

Bruce McConkie also stated in The Promised Messiah “… there is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God–the Only Begotten of the Father.” (pp.468-69)

I could offer more quotes, but these seem to support the point.

D

We do not believe that God had sex with Mary, and this subject has been explained before. I believe it was said that McConkie was not speaking for the Church when he explained his belief.
We as LDS acknowledge and believe that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by the power of God through the Holy Spirit. There was no sexual contact or she could not have remained a virgin, which she did. We do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We believe there is God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three who act as one in purpose, AKA the Godhead.
I don’t know how much clearer our belief could be, but there will always be individuals who will dig up someone’s individual interpretation of things and say that it is what the Church believes.
I am sure you have the same in the Catholic Church, as I have come across a lot of mis-information handed out by priests to my husband and I while trying to solve a problem he has with divorce. No matter how many priests we asked, we got that many different answers to the same question. Finally, someone in this forum pointed me to a Vatican writing as the official view. And that negated all the other answers put forth by the priests. I asked why we had to go through 3 years of searching for the truth, before finding it here.
So, you may point out all the writings you can find that show someone believed it happened this way and it will simply mean that he believed that it happened that way. It does not mean that is what the Church teaches, or believes.
BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Chris-WA:

BJ, I think you missed the entire point I was trying to make. It was in no way attacking you after you paid us a compliment. The point is that many LDS dismiss our arguments based on the following statement, “Well, I was never taught that,” or “I never heard that, so it must not be true.” What I’m trying to get across here is that the reason you have never heard of many of these things before in regards to Mormonism is not because they weren’t taught-- it’s because the original teaching was either drastically changed or was de-emphasized so that by the time you came into the church, you never heard about them. When taught history lessons in church, I’m sure these very issues are not brought up, so the membership gets a very rosy picture of the early LDS church–rosy and incomplete.

The song was just a small example of this phenomenon–insignificant in and of itself. But this is a pattern that those of us outside the church readily recognize when dealing with current LDS members while discussing these issues. When we bring up such things, we are often summarily dismissed by “I’ve never been taught that, so it must not be true.” The proper way to handle such criticisms would be to look up the material in question and find out for oneself whether or not what we’re saying is correct.

For example, when I told my own wife that the LDS church allows abortions in certain limited circumstances, she didn’t believe me because “she never heard that taught.” Well, that is church teaching, but somehow the membership has never heard of it, despite going to Sunday school almost every weekend of the year for their whole lives.

So, when we bring these things up, we are often attacked as anti-Mormon and dismissed altogether. The LDS member then builds a wall around themself that no discussion will be rationally considered (I’m speaking in my general dealings with LDS here, not necessarily you), but will be immediately rejected with an emotional persecution response.

So, in conclusion, I would say that if we can point out some things to you that are true, even though you were never taught them in your LDS training, don’t you think there is the possibility that this could apply to many other things as well? Is it possible that many of the things you have been taught all your life as a faithful Mormon are the latest iteration of current church teaching, even perhaps drastically changed since the beginnings of the church? There is no disrespect intended. I am being as rational and unemotional as I can possibly be. So please, when we try to point out something about Mormonism, please don’t say it’s untrue because you have never been taught that. All that means is that you were never taught that. It doesn’t mean it was never taught.

Chris,
I appreciate your explanation and agree with it as it applies to me, I did not go back to my post, but I know I was pretty incredulous about that song. I don’t think I said it didn’t exist, I just said I had never heard of it before. I admit there are a lot of things I have never heard before and I have learned many things here that I did not know before including that song.
I still appreciate your patient explanations and I agree that I pretty much look at the world through rose colored glasses, as least I try to.
BJ

 

[Demosthenes]

BJ Colbert:

We do not believe that God had sex with Mary, and this subject has been explained before. I believe it was said that McConkie was not speaking for the Church when he explained his belief.
We as LDS acknowledge and believe that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by the power of God through the Holy Spirit. There was no sexual contact or she could not have remained a virgin, which she did. We do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We believe there is God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three who act as one in purpose, AKA the Godhead.
I don’t know how much clearer our belief could be, but there will always be individuals who will dig up someone’s individual interpretation of things and say that it is what the Church believes.
I am sure you have the same in the Catholic Church, as I have come across a lot of mis-information handed out by priests to my husband and I while trying to solve a problem he has with divorce. No matter how many priests we asked, we got that many different answers to the same question. Finally, someone in this forum pointed me to a Vatican writing as the official view. And that negated all the other answers put forth by the priests. I asked why we had to go through 3 years of searching for the truth, before finding it here.
So, you may point out all the writings you can find that show someone believed it happened this way and it will simply mean that he believed that it happened that way. It does not mean that is what the Church teaches, or believes.
BJ

BJ,

I am sure that there are many different opinions among leaders in all churches. However, regarding your comment that McConkie was not speaking for the church, I am quoting from LDS published and sanctioned doctrine. Your example refers to verbal opinions which were not published or sanctioned by the Catholic church.

By the way, I was raised in the LDS church and contrary to your assumption, I am not Catholic.

D

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Demosthenes:

BJ,

I am sure that there are many different opinions among leaders in all churches. However, regarding your comment that McConkie was not speaking for the church, I am quoting from LDS published and sanctioned doctrine. Your example refers to verbal opinions which were not published or sanctioned by the Catholic church.

By the way, I was raised in the LDS church and contrary to your assumption, I am not Catholic.

D

Well, they were published by the Catholic parish, and judged by a Chruch Tribunal. Which we believed was true until we were set straight by people in this Forum. BJ

 

[majick275]

Welcome Demosthenes.

Please be warned that there some here who will tell you that LDS doctrine is strictly “sola scriptura”. They do not accept the words of their prophets and/or apostles as anything other than speculation and opinion unless those words are canonized.(unless of course those words support THEIR point of view)

We have recently had quite a row over this.

 

[amgid]

Several people had responded to my original post to Paul, but they all repeated basically the same thing, so this reply will apply to all of them. These quotes are from Paul in his posts #160 and #165

PaulDupre:

I don’t see that at all in the passage from 2 Tim. Just the opposite, in fact. St. Paul warns that “Men will be lovers of self, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, …having a semblance of piety, but disowning its power.”

He says nothing about any Church, just fallen men being wicked. He described these days perfectly, but is still describing apostacy of wicked men FROM the Church, not apostacy OF the Church.

OK, let’s quote the complete text of these verses, and see what they say:

2 Timothy 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
These verses clearly describe the condition of the world in the last days. Assuming that we are now living in the last days, and I expect that many would agree with that, let’s see how these descriptions match the condition of the world today. Verses 2 to 4 describe the wickedness of the world in general. They say that some people (at least) in the world will have these unholy attributes. Verse 5, however, refers specifically to matters pertaining to RELIGION. It says that some people will have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. This cannot refer to just wicked people in general, but refers to religions orders. Bank robbers, porn peddlers, money launderers, mafia gangsters etc. don’t have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. This can only refer to people who make some kind of pretence to religion. It refers to people who claim to be ministers of religion. It says that SOME of these people (at least) have this attribute. So, let’s look around and see how well this description matches the condition of the world today. As I look around, I see that ALL churches and religions fit perfectly into this description. There is not ONE church or religion on earth which does NOT perfectly match this description—with the soul exception of the LDS Church. Every single one of them has “a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof”. Show me one church on earth that is led by revelation, by visions, by ministrations of angels, by the gifts of Holy Ghost to men? There isn’t any. Show me one church that is led by true prophets and Apostles called and chosen directly by God, and in direct communion with Him? There aren’t any. The conclusion is inescapable: the Christian Church must at some stage have apostatized for it to arrive at this condition today. How it happened, or when it happened, or whether it was a gradual process or a sudden event, is immaterial here. The fact of the case is that this is what we observe; this is the condition of the churches of the world which we see today.

St. Paul never uses the word “all” in this passage. Again you have interjected this word to make the passage fit your agenda.

That is true, St. Paul doesn’t say “all”. But that is not the point. The point is that this is what WE observe when we look around at the condition of the churches today. WE see that ALL of them “have a form of godliness, but deny the poser thereof”, without exception. And what did Paul say? “From such turn away!”

Again you are adding to the plain meaning of the text. What St. Paul specifically describes is the sins of these apostate individuals, not their form of Church government.

Governments are made up of people and individuals. If all the individuals are like that, then the governments are like that. If the Pope is like that, and all his cardinals are like that, and all the bishops and priests and clergy and laity are so, then the church must be so too. It is one of the signs of the times, the apostate condition of Christendom, as Isaiah has rightly declared: “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). Unfortunately that is the reality on the ground, as we observe it today. Paul doesn’t say “all”. WE observe that it applies to “all”.

amgid

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

Several people had responded to my original post to Paul, but they all repeated basically the same thing, so this reply will apply to all of them. These quotes are from Paul in his posts #160 and #165

OK, let’s quote the complete text of these verses, and see what they say:

2 Timothy 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

These verses clearly describe the condition of the world in the last days. Assuming that we are now living in the last days, and I expect that many would agree with that, let’s see how these descriptions match the condition of the world today. Verses 2 to 4 describe the wickedness of the world in general. They say that some people (at least) in the world will have these unholy attributes. Verse 5, however, refers specifically to matters pertaining to RELIGION. It says that some people will have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. This cannot refer to just wicked people in general, but refers to religions orders. Bank robbers, porn peddlers, money launderers, mafia gangsters etc. don’t have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. This can only refer to people who make some kind of pretence to religion. It refers to people who claim to be ministers of religion. It says that SOME of these people (at least) have this attribute.

You have made some good points here regarding the state of the world today. Did you know that the Catholic Church also believes there will be a falling away in the last days before the second coming, and that there is ample evidence that it has already started? You see, we believe this because that is what scripture tells us–there will be a falling away in the last days. Now, contrast that with what the Mormon church teaches. It teaches that the Great Apostacy happened around the time the Apostles died. That was almost 2000 years ago. As you can see, the scriptures you quote refer to a falling away in the last days, right before the second coming of Christ. So you cannot use these scriptures to show the Great Apostacy occured in the early church. Also, the scriptures do not prophecy a restoration of Christ’s church. Why is that? Because they new the church would go on, even though many of its members would fall away as time went on. The wheat and the chaff will coexist until the Christ comes to judge the world. (CONTINUED)

 

[Chris-WA]

CONTINUED…

So, let’s look around and see how well this description matches the condition of the world today. As I look around, I see that ALL churches and religions fit perfectly into this description. There is not ONE church or religion on earth which does NOT perfectly match this description—with the soul exception of the LDS Church. Every single one of them has “a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof”.

Quite a claim here. You really think the Catholic Church has “a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof?” Do you know the teachings and history of the Catholic Church well enough to make such a claim? Or are you simply repeating text from Joseph Smith’s First Vision? I would challenge you to research this more before you make such a sweeping statement.

Show me one church on earth that is led by revelation, by visions, by ministrations of angels, by the gifts of Holy Ghost to men? There isn’t any. Show me one church that is led by true prophets and Apostles called and chosen directly by God, and in direct communion with Him? There aren’t any.

Where does it say that the Christian church has to be led by a prophet? Where does it say that they must have visions? Where does it say that more public revelation is necessary other than what Christ gave to his Apostles? You are making many assumptions here that you cannot back up. You are assuming there has to be a prophet. You are assuming that more revelation is needed. You need to examine these assumptions more closely.

The conclusion is inescapable: the Christian Church must at some stage have apostatized for it to arrive at this condition today. How it happened, or when it happened, or whether it was a gradual process or a sudden event, is immaterial here. The fact of the case is that this is what we observe; this is the condition of the churches of the world which we see today.

Actually, it’s not immaterial. Your scripture quotes refer to a falling away that is not consistent with the official LDS view of the Great Apostacy.

 

[majick275]

I think a review of the book of Joel would certainly enlighten one about prophecies, visions and such in the last days. It is very clear that it will not be limited to one man…or even just to men.

Paul’s letter to the hebrews tells us that Jesus made it no longer necessary for the Lord to lead his church through a prophet. It also tells us that he made it unnecessary to go to the traditional temple and participate in those carnal ordinances anymore.

What church appears to be following Paul’s admonition in this letter?

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

You have made some good points here regarding the state of the world today. Did you know that the Catholic Church also believes there will be a falling away in the last days before the second coming, and that there is ample evidence that it has already started? You see, we believe this because that is what scripture tells us–there will be a falling away in the last days. Now, contrast that with what the Mormon church teaches. It teaches that the Great Apostacy happened around the time the Apostles died. That was almost 2000 years ago. As you can see, the scriptures you quote refer to a falling away in the last days, right before the second coming of Christ. So you cannot use these scriptures to show the Great Apostacy occured in the early church.

I agree that defining the Apostasy in precise theological terms, and exactly how and when it occurred, is a bit difficult to do. But our observations lead us to the conclusion that it did happen. A US judge once said that although I can’t give an accurate legal definition of what constitutes pornography, I can always recognize it when I see it! The same holds true of the Apostasy. I can’t give you an accurate theological description for it, but I can for sure recognize it when I see it. And that is what I observe in the Christian world today.

Also, the scriptures do not prophecy a restoration of Christ’s church. Why is that? Because they new the church would go on, even though many of its members would fall away as time went on. The wheat and the chaff will coexist until the Christ comes to judge the world.

There are biblical passages that LDS understand as pointing to the restoration of the gospel in the latter days, but they are open to interpretation, and I am sure you would not agree with them.

Quite a claim here. You really think the Catholic Church has “a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof?” Do you know the teachings and history of the Catholic Church well enough to make such a claim? Or are you simply repeating text from Joseph Smith’s First Vision? I would challenge you to research this more before you make such a sweeping statement.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the Catholic Church and its teachings, but I don’t think I need to be in order to come to that conclusion. I come to that conclusion as per what I stated above.

Where does it say that the Christian church has to be led by a prophet?

God’s true church must be led by revelation from God. That has been the pattern throughout sacred history. And people who receive revelations from God are normally called prophets!

Where does it say that they must have visions?

God communicates His will to His prophets in many different ways, “visions” being one of them. As it says in Proverbs 29:18: “where there is no vision, the people perish”!

Where does it say that more public revelation is necessary other than what Christ gave to his Apostles?

Where does it say that they aren’t necessary? That has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout sacred history. What has changed? Has God suddenly changed? Has God’s behavior towards men suddenly undergone a fundamental metamorphosis that He no longer wishes to communicate with them by revelation any more? If God has spoken to mankind by revelation from the dawn of creation, why should He not want to do so now? Are we less in need of His direction and guidance now than we were before? I think not!

Since that has been God’s pattern of behavior towards mankind throughout history, we must assume that pattern must continue, unless God had revealed to us by another public revelation in the Bible that that pattern was to change; and I see no such revelation in the Bible.

(Continued into the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

amgid:

You are making many assumptions here that you cannot back up. You are assuming there has to be a prophet. You are assuming that more revelation is needed. You need to examine these assumptions more closely.

Absolutely I do, without a doubt. It is a great principle to know that God is not dead, that He has not changed, that He does not in fact change, that He still takes an interest in the affairs of men, and that He still continues to communicate with mankind by private as well as public revelations through prophets and Apostles as He did in ancient times. Who would not be excited by such a prospect? Allow me to quote you a passage from the Book of Mormon. I know that you don’t accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God, but I do; and it sums up my thoughts on the subject better than I could do so myself:

Mormon 9:

7 And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues.

8 Behold, I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing?

10 And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not God of miracles.

11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

Actually, it’s not immaterial. Your scripture quotes refer to a falling away that is not consistent with the official LDS view of the Great Apostacy.

I don’t know what you mean by the “official LDS view of the Great Apostasy”. The only thing that is “official” about the LDS view of the Apostasy is that it has occurred! That is what everyone agrees on. But there is no “official” pronouncement as to the precise modus operandi of exactly how and when it happened. That is a difficult theological principle to define. Various LDS gospel scholars, including some in leadership, have made the attempt, with varying degrees of success; but there is nothing “official” about these. I will give you my own personal opinion on it, for what it is worth.

First of all we need to define what we mean by the Apostasy. By that we don’t mean that all the Catholics became wicked. We don’t subscribe to the Protestant doctrine that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and the Great and Abominable Church of the devil! That is what the Protestants believe, not us. What I understand by it is the loss of priesthood authority to directly communicate with God, and lead and direct the church by divine revelation and counsel from God. When that happens, then the church no longer has the divine authority to perform valid ordinances which are divinely sanctioned, authorized, and acceptable to God. It can no longer be regarded as God’s authorized mouthpiece on earth. That is why LDS church does not recognize baptisms performed by other churches. The other thing that happens is that the church begins to drift doctrinally and theologically from the original teachings. Because the church is no longer led by revelation, it cannot preserve the purity of its doctrine, and over time a lot of erroneous doctrines and practices begin to creep into it which are not true, or acceptable to or authorized by God. This event I believe occurred when the Apostles died. That is when the authority was lost, and the church began to drift. It didn’t become wicked! But the authority was lost, and in process of time we have reached the stage that we are in today.

amgid